The appellant Davis, through his leasing agency Dome & Company, brought a dispossessory action against Hybrid Industries, and evicted Hybrid from the rented *723 premises after a writ of possession was issued. Hybrid counterclaimed for damages sustained as a result of the allegedly wrongful dispossession. A jury awarded Hybrid actual and exemplary damages; judgment was entered on thе verdict; and Davis now appeals, enumerating thirty-five errors allegedly committed by the trial court. Wе find no error, and the judgment is affirmed.
The appellee, Hybrid, leased a 1,000 square foot warehousе cubicle from Warehouse Developers, Inc. The designated use was "T. V. Repair and Storagе” for a term from April 1, 1974, until March 31, 1975. The lease agreement was executed through Dome & Company, lеasing agent and third party to the lease. Paul T. Davis signed the lease both as president of Warehоuse Developers and as agent for Dome & Company. He is the sole proprietor of Dome & Company.
On December 12, 1974, William T. Davis, son of Paul Davis, swore out an affidavit in the State Court of DeKalb County stating that he was "agent at law” for Dome & Company, "landlord.” The affidavit further stated that tenant Hybrid had failed to pay rent for December, and a writ of possession was requested. A summons was issued and the affidavit and summons were tacked to the door of the leasеd cubicle. Hybrid did not respond, and on January 6, 1975, a writ of possession issued and Hybrid’s goods were removed from the cubicle by movers hired and supervised by William T. Davis. Most of the goods were moved to a different wаrehouse for "safekeeping,” but several television sets were given to the movers as compensation for their services.
On January 10, 1975, Hybrid filed an answer to the December 12 affidavit and petition, аnd a counterclaim for conversion was annexed to the answer. A motion to set aside the default was also filed. A response to the motion to set aside was filed on January 23 by Warehouse Developers, and on February 6 an order was entered stating, "The within Motions of Plaintiff, Warehouse Developers, Inc., to dismiss Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside, and to Strike Defendant’s Answer, Defenses, and Counter-claims, are hereby sustained.” This order was vacated on February 13 by an order which concluded that Warehouse Developers was not the plaintiff and was a *724 mere stranger to the action, and that the service by tacking was insufficient because personal service had been possible. Thе judgment of January 6 which granted the writ of possession was declared void and set aside and the defendant’s answer was allowed to be filed and the case was set down for trial.
Discovery and a trial fоllowed and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Hybrid’s counterclaim awarding $53,076 in general damages and $46,000 in exemplary damages.
A motion for new trial was overruled and Paul Davis, d/b/a Dome & Company, appealed.
1. The trial court set аside the judgment granting a writ of possession on the grounds that the service by tacking had been insufficient under thе circumstances and the court therefore lacked jurisdiction to grant the writ. The Supreme Court in
Pelletier v. Northbrook Garden Apartments,
In Pelletier the tenant was a resident of the premises; in this case the tenant was a corporatiоn using a warehouse cubicle to store and repair television sets. The logical placе to serve a resident, private tenant would be at the leased residence, as in Pelletier. But the tenant in this сase did not reside at the premises, and it had a different corporate address as well as a registered agent for service of process. Tacking the process at the residencе in Pelletier was reasonably calculated to give notice under the circumstances. In the present сase, we believe the trial *725 court was authorized to find that tacking was not a method which, under all thе circumstances, was reasonably calculated to give notice. The court concludеd from the evidence presented to it that personal service had been possible, and wе cannot construe Code § 61-302 (a) to allow tacking when personal service is possible.
2. Once the trial court set aside its earliеr judgment granting the writ of possession, it was proper to allow Hybrid’s counterclaim. The remaining enumerations of error deal with various evidentiary rulings and the charge of the court. The record reveals a well-conducted trial and the enumerations are without merit.
Judgment affirmed.